Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Belarusian/Belorussian translation

On 2011-03-04 11:00, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
> 2011.03.04 10:30, Dwayne Bailey rašė:
> > On 2011-03-04 09:51, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
> > > 2011.03.04 09:14, Yury Tarasievich rašė:
> > > > Also, I still can't readily find on LO sites the authoritative 
> > > > description of the .PO based L10N process. 
> > >
> > > It's more-or-less outlined here: 
> > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Translation_for_3_3, except the 
> > > "Translators should use Pootle" part, which should have been worded 
> > > "Translators are suggested to use Pootle" or similarly.
> > >
> > > > Pootle isn't acceptable for the languages with the comparatively 
> > > > weak terminological base . In such cases it's common for everybody 
> > > > to translate "just as one sees fit". Sasha's contribution on Pootle 
> > > > is already deviating from the terminology used in the existing 
> > > > Belarusian translation.
> > >
> > > Dwayne has already mentioned why this particular criticism for 
> > > Pootle is incorrect. I'll add one more thing: the process of 
> > > translating in Pootle is quite flexible: the language admin can 
> > > grant anyone permissions to submit translations, or to suggest them. 
> > > Say you don't have a terminology file on hand, but you want to keep 
> > > it consistent – in that case you'd just give the team members the 
> > > right to suggest, and one or two reviewers to submit the suggested 
> > > translations. That's what a few teams already do, and it works 
> > > pretty well.
> > >
> > > By the way, Pootle can even autogenerate a terminology file for you. 
> > > It would need a review, of course, but it would still be a huge step 
> > > forward.
> >
> > Rimas I wonder if it would be worth actually creating a terminology 
> > file for LO?  Teams could still upload their own terms but this could 
> > act as an authoritative terminology list especially useful for teams 
> > starting out.  A team could be responsible for maintaining that as a 
> > resource.
>
> I think it would be worth, but how exactly do you suggest we do that? 
> IMO, the easiest way is for teams that use the Merged modules to 
> autogenerate terminology in Pootle. Or would it result in considerably 
> worse quality than using other means?
The auto-generated lists are very useful, but there are a lot of terms 
that will still need to be removed.  It would be a pain to have each 
team have to do that.  A better approach might be to auto-generate a 
list that is then human reviewed then merge in any autogenerated lists 
from other languages.

A starting point could be the 2,500 terms that we refined as part of the 
Anloc project.  These are well commented and reviewed and come from an 
amalgamation of various FOSS projects dealing with browsers, office 
suites, etc.

--
Dwayne

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***